Why are Transgenders such a serious political issue in this election?

[Michael Hardner]

20 hours ago, User said:

1. No, you use this language as if there is no issue and it is only a problem or a fabricated culture war when people oppose these things. 

2. You may not consider yourself part of it, but you are certainly only rooting against one side of it.

3. As I have repeatedly explained this to you and others, this is an online forum. You post things here, you should expect that people will engage with you on what you say. I engage with you because you have posted something I have something to say in response to. 

4. You are trying awfully hard to get me to call you names, why? We have an agreement. 

5. People have been demonizing each other in politics far longer than the 1990's... 

6. Why? None of my positions are based on feelings. They are based on fact, logic, and reason. 

 

1. "this language" being neutral language, yes.  I would say that the main issue is a set of disagreements on the theme.  The culture war isn't about transgenderism, that's just another arena for the fight.

2. That's incorrect.   I have as many friends I know who are opposed to the idea of transgender identity as I have transgender friends, for sure.

3. I have something to say about the mode of engagement.  I wouldn't fist fight you over your views - would you fist fight me ?  If you agree that we both need to agree on the rules of engagement moving forward then we have an answer.

4.  I suppose that's true and I respect that.  But it sure seems like you have zero respect for Democrats, people who embrace transgender rights and so on.  I do respect people who can't accept the concept, but the best way to delineate a way to move forward is to engage respectfully.  If you don't respect me, that's fair.  I can't force you to.  You can say you don't, and that's not name calling.  And then I would ask again why you would bother to talk with me.

5. I stopped doing that in the 1980s myself.  I met a communist with whom I vehemently disagreed on politics.  But his overall philosophy for democratic engagement, the will of the people, the dialectic of history was actually quite wise.  He was very close friends with hardcore conservatives in our midst and respected their views.  I was greatly influenced by this man.

6. Your language reveals that you think that there is no way to talk about transgenderism unless you are "pushing" it.  I object to that word because it implies I'm lying, basically.
 

[User]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. "this language" being neutral language, yes.  I would say that the main issue is a set of disagreements on the theme.  The culture war isn't about transgenderism, that's just another arena for the fight.

So, instead of dealing with the arguments, you are instead attacking the motives, as if everyone who is opposing this absurdity is only doing so because they want a culture war, not because they actually care or have the opinions they do... 

This is a very dishonest and illogical tactic. This is exactly why I question what you are doing here. 

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. That's incorrect.   I have as many friends I know who are opposed to the idea of transgender identity as I have transgender friends, for sure.

So far on this forum it is correct. It is what you are doing here right now. It is what you just argued above on point 1. 

To that point, are all of your friends liars and just using this as a culture war tactic, they don't really care about this issue one way or the other beyond how it can be used as a culture war?

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I have something to say about the mode of engagement.  I wouldn't fist fight you over your views - would you fist fight me ?  If you agree that we both need to agree on the rules of engagement moving forward then we have an answer.

Then stop asking why people respond to you when you post things on a forum. 

If you come up to me and start punching me, I will fight back... but a better analogy would be that you show up to a boxing gym, step into the ring to box, start punching at someone in the ring and then when they punch back you sit there wondering and asking why are they boxing with you. 

They are boxing with you because this is a boxing gym and you came in to box. 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4.  I suppose that's true and I respect that.  But it sure seems like you have zero respect for Democrats, people who embrace transgender rights and so on.  I do respect people who can't accept the concept, but the best way to delineate a way to move forward is to engage respectfully.  If you don't respect me, that's fair.  I can't force you to.  You can say you don't, and that's not name calling.  And then I would ask again why you would bother to talk with me.

These are all generalizations, and generally speaking, I have zero respect for Democrats positions and on some things find what they do to be beyond the pale. 

Speaking of language... here you are saying "transgender rights"

Again, you have a side, you clearly do. Your use of this language and all your arguments here show you do. You talk about engaging respectfully as you just dismissed everyone's motives on this. 

You are conflating my lack of respect with what you say with you as a person... again, you keep trying to get me to engage with you negatively on a personal level. Why? We have an agreement. 

If you are still trying to understand why I respond to you... go back to point 3 again. 

Why are you here in a boxing gym if you are going to keep asking why people are boxing with you?

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I stopped doing that in the 1980s myself.  I met a communist with whom I vehemently disagreed on politics.  But his overall philosophy for democratic engagement, the will of the people, the dialectic of history was actually quite wise.  He was very close friends with hardcore conservatives in our midst and respected their views.  I was greatly influenced by this man.

No, you didn't. You have just questioned the motives of everyone on this issue, that they are just making this a culture war item to make it a culture war thing. You are in fact demonizing people. 

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Your language reveals that you think that there is no way to talk about transgenderism unless you are "pushing" it.  I object to that word because it implies I'm lying, basically.

Well, if you have a position here, which you clearly do, you are pushing that. To the point of others, yes, they clearly have positions here on this subject as do those on the left, and they are pushing it. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

Oh, so why are you trying to be insulting and rude about it?

There's nothing rude in this statement:
"Believing in ancient book based on Babylonian Legends and pre-literate superstition as truth is not wisdom."

[User]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's nothing rude in this statement:
"Believing in ancient book based on Babylonian Legends and pre-literate superstition as truth is not wisdom."

You are:

1. Reducing The Bible and all of Christianity, something about 1/3 of the human population believes in to being based on an ancient book and it's "legends"

2. You are mocking it all as "pre-literate" and "superstition" when... how would you know they were Babylonian Legends without written text and how would there be written text if they were not literate... 

3. You say it is not truth, which is fine, but many believe it is and not all of The Bible is Genesis and much of it is written history of people, places, things, and events based on real people some of it supported by archeology, so dismissing it as not true... then saying if you do think it is true that is not wisdom. 

These are all very rude and insulting. 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, User said:

1.  you are instead attacking the motives 

2. This is a very dishonest and illogical tactic. This is exactly why I question what you are doing here. 

3. So far on this forum it is correct. It is what you are doing here right now.  

4. To that point, are all of your friends liars and just using this as a culture war tactic, they don't really care about this issue one way or the other beyond how it can be used as a culture war?

5. Then stop asking why people respond to you when you post things on a forum. 

6. If you come up to me and start punching me, I will fight back... but a better analogy would be that you show up to a boxing gym, step into the ring to box, start punching at someone in the ring and then when they punch back you sit there wondering and asking why are they boxing with you. 

7. They are boxing with you because this is a boxing gym and you came in to box. 

8. I have zero respect for Democrats positions and on some things find what they do to be beyond the pale. 

9. Again, you have a side, you clearly do. Your use of this language and all your arguments here show you do.

10. You talk about engaging respectfully as you just dismissed everyone's motives on this. 

11. You are conflating my lack of respect with what you say with you as a person... again, you keep trying to get me to engage with you negatively on a personal level. Why? We have an agreement. 

12. If you are still trying to understand why I respond to you... go back to point 3 again. 

13. Why are you here in a boxing gym if you are going to keep asking why people are boxing with you?

14. No, you didn't. You have just questioned the motives of everyone on this issue, that they are just making this a culture war item to make it a culture war thing. You are in fact demonizing people. 

15. Well, if you have a position here, which you clearly do, you are pushing that. To the point of others, yes, they clearly have positions here on this subject as do those on the left, and they are pushing it. 

 

1.  I wouldn't say that.  When you frame people as "pushing" ideas about transgender identity that sounds more like additing motives.  If you used more neutral language then it might not seem that way, at least to me.  I'm glad to use more neutral language if you see an issue with the words I use.

2. How could it be if I agree to follow the same rules as you ?  The idea of using mutually agreeable language shouldn't be a problem should it ?  

3. We have barely touched on the issue at all - we're having an extended meta-discussion as far as I can see.  If you don't see my arguments for accepting folks who don't themselves accept trans identity, then maybe that's something I do more IRL, such as with my parents.  They absolutely reject the ideas as they are, and I accept that they do so.

4.  Loaded question, but the answer is - no - my friends are not all liars.

5.   I can ask anything I want.  I'm genuinely befuddled why people care, beyond correcting me on facts which I do understand.

6.   Not everybody in the gym is there to fight you.  I am not here to fight you on this forum either.

7.   I disagree.

8.   Okay.  So you are here to fight me, and if I agree with Democrats on something then you don't respect me.

9. I hope I didn't say that I didn't have an opinion on this.  I wouldn't say I have a "side", in that I agree 100% with some group.  I'm an individual and consider myself a champion of democratic discussion, hence conservative.

10. I didn't intend to.

11.  Well, ok ... and I realize we're not supposed to name-call here.  I hope I haven't done that.  But, whether or not you say it, it doesn't make sense (to me) for you to discuss with me except to tell me I'm wrong on everything.  What fun is that ?

12.  Yeah, it's a boxing fight.  I think I mentioned my communist friend and his hardcore conservative buddies.  We have all had beers together.  We all want the best for Canada, I would say.

13. It's a coffee house to me.

14. Politicians do this, yes.  On both sides.  They blow things up to incite the uninformed.  Do you want some Liberal examples ?

15.  Are you "pushing" your opinions ?  Is "pushing" the same as saying something ?  Because "pushing" something on children sounds wrong.  Sex Education sounds fine to most of us.  And the devil is in the details.  

I would discuss such details but not if you just want to box me.  I just don't find that fun.  It's ok if you do, of course.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are:

1. Reducing The Bible and all of Christianity, something about 1/3 of the human population believes in to being based on an ancient book and it's "legends"

2. You are mocking it all as "pre-literate" and "superstition" when... how would you know they were Babylonian Legends without written text and how would there be written text if they were not literate... 

3. You say it is not truth, which is fine,

4. but many believe it is and not all of The Bible is Genesis and much of it is written history of people, places, things, and events based on real people some of it supported by archeology, so dismissing it as not true... then saying if you do think it is true that is not wisdom. 

5. These are all very rude and insulting. 

 

 

1. Factual.  Is the book not ancient ?  Is it not based on oral tradition written down after time ?  These are a lot less loaded terms than saying "pushing on children".  You take offense where it's not clear.

I think you have a double standard here, sorry.

2. How do I know they're Babylonian ?  They appear in Babylonian texts... again recorded from oral tradition as per published research.

3. Isn't saying it's not truth kind of an insult too ?

4. I don't think faith and wisdom are interchangeable.  I don't think I said directly that it's not true, but that people accept it as truth.  Some of it for sure is true.

5. People can take offense from anything and I think you are too sensitive when looking at what I write and not sensitive enough when looking at mine.

A. I take offense to "pushing transgender on children" because it implies, at the worst, that people are brainwashing children perhaps even for their own advantage.

B. You take offense to me saying the Bible is an ancient book based on legends.

A. Is offensive because it speaks to a general motive for talking about identity issues with childrn
B. Is offensive to people who don't want to hear that the bible isn't true.  But the statement itself is factual.

 

Ok - so box me on my statements vs A and B.  I can fight you on that if you like...
 

[User]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  I wouldn't say that.  When you frame people as "pushing" ideas about transgender identity that sounds more like additing motives.  If you used more neutral language then it might not seem that way, at least to me.  I'm glad to use more neutral language if you see an issue with the words I use.

You did not respond to anything I said here regarding your making this about the motives of others as you say they are just in this to further a generic culture war, as if they don't have earnest reasons to support the positions they do. 
 

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. How could it be if I agree to follow the same rules as you ?  The idea of using mutually agreeable language shouldn't be a problem should it ?  

I was clearly pointing out that what you were doing with trying to attack motive was dishonest and illogical. You are muddling this entire conversation up now with how you are numbering things and responding to them.  
 

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. We have barely touched on the issue at all - we're having an extended meta-discussion as far as I can see.  If you don't see my arguments for accepting folks who don't themselves accept trans identity, then maybe that's something I do more IRL, such as with my parents.  They absolutely reject the ideas as they are, and I accept that they do so.

You and I have engaged on this subject more than here and to the point I am making, I am commenting on what you do here, not what you do with your friends because I can't see them. 

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4.  Loaded question, but the answer is - no - my friends are not all liars.

Nothing loaded about it, you were and have repeatedly tried to label this all as some culture war and that the motives here were to drive that... so, is that why your friends believe what they do? You say no... so then why did you make this argument?

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5.   I can ask anything I want.  I'm genuinely befuddled why people care, beyond correcting me on facts which I do understand.

Except, you have asked me this question several times now and no matter how many times I explain this to you, you ignore the response and ask it again. 

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6.   Not everybody in the gym is there to fight you.  I am not here to fight you on this forum either.

And yet... here you are. Fighting me and fighting others. You are in fact in this thread criticizing others and myself for our views on this subject. You do this on others as well. It seems, you just don't enjoy getting punched back. You want to jump in the ring, you want to throw some punches, but the second you start getting them back, you balk.
 

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

7.   I disagree.

 You can disagree all you want to, but when jump in the ring and box, you will get boxed. No amount of your disagreement will change that reality. 

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

8.   Okay.  So you are here to fight me, and if I agree with Democrats on something then you don't respect me.

Once again... I said I don't respect their positions, you make this personal for yourself saying it is that I don't respect you. How many times are you going to keep trying to make this personal instead of simply focusing on what people say? We had an agreement, I am not trying to make this personal with you. 

I certainly don't respect much of what you are saying here right now... just the same as you are sitting here not respecting what I am saying as you disagree with me. 

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

9. I hope I didn't say that I didn't have an opinion on this.  I wouldn't say I have a "side", in that I agree 100% with some group.  I'm an individual and consider myself a champion of democratic discussion, hence conservative.

You keep trying to say you are using neutral language, you are not. 

That is not what makes someone conservative in their views. Democratic discussion would be an authoritarian to freedom spectrum, not left vs right, as both left and right can value freedom in various issues or value more authoritarianism. 

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

10. You talk about engaging respectfully as you just dismissed everyone's motives on this. 

Intentions and results are wildly different things. 

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

11.  Well, ok ... and I realize we're not supposed to name-call here.  I hope I haven't done that.  But, whether or not you say it, it doesn't make sense (to me) for you to discuss with me except to tell me I'm wrong on everything.  What fun is that ?

Start a thread about how much you love guns, gun ownership, marksmanship... I will be there to agree with you. In a thread on transgenders and what you are saying here, I will disagree. If all you want is people to agree with you... well, I point out again, this is a forum where people routinely have different opinions and disagree. 

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

12.  Yeah, it's a boxing fight.  I think I mentioned my communist friend and his hardcore conservative buddies.  We have all had beers together.  We all want the best for Canada, I would say.

And do you all just sit around and nod at each other, pat each other on the back, and never disagree? If that were the case, not sure what the point is in saying some are Conservative and some are Communist if they all agree 100% on everything all the time. 

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

13. It's a coffee house to me.

Do you sit down with random people in a coffee house and start telling them your thoughts on the transgender culture wars and then expect them to just nod their heads in agreement and not say anything to disagree?

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

14. Politicians do this, yes.  On both sides.  They blow things up to incite the uninformed.  Do you want some Liberal examples ?

Except, you did not say politicians. You are saying that now. How about we focus on this discussion here? Are you saying everyone who is making transgenderism an issue is uninformed now?

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

15.  Are you "pushing" your opinions ?  Is "pushing" the same as saying something ?  Because "pushing" something on children sounds wrong.  Sex Education sounds fine to most of us.  And the devil is in the details.  

Yes, I would characterize what I am doing here as pushing my thoughts and opinions. 

If you think pushing things on kids is wrong... then you agree then, we should all oppose pushing children into "gender affirming" care? Pushing girls to have to compete against boys who think they are girls? Pushing girls to be OK with boys who think they are girls in their locker rooms or other traditional girls only spaces? That we should not hide this from parents when schools provide counseling or "affirming" care to children? That we should not push surgery and drugs onto children to "affirm" their gender change?








 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, User said:

1. You did not respond to anything I said here regarding your making this about the motives of others as you say they are just in this to further a generic culture war, as if they don't have earnest reasons to support the positions they do. 
 

2. I was clearly pointing out that what you were doing with trying to attack motive was dishonest and illogical. You are muddling this entire conversation up now with how you are numbering things and responding to them.  
 

3. You and I have engaged on this subject more than here and to the point I am making, I am commenting on what you do here, not what you do with your friends because I can't see them. 

4. Nothing loaded about it, you were and have repeatedly tried to label this all as some culture war and that the motives here were to drive that... so, is that why your friends believe what they do? You say no... so then why did you make this argument?

5.. Fighting me and fighting others. You are in fact in this thread criticizing others and myself for our views on this subject. You do this on others as well. It seems, you just don't enjoy getting punched back. You want to jump in the ring, you want to throw some punches, but the second you start getting them back, you balk.

6. I said I don't respect their positions, you make this personal for yourself saying it is that I don't respect you. How many times are you going to keep trying to make this personal instead of simply focusing on what people say? We had an agreement, I am not trying to make this personal with you. 

7. And do you all just sit around and nod at each other, pat each other on the back, and never disagree? If that were the case, not sure what the point is in saying some are Conservative and some are Communist if they all agree 100% on everything all the time. 

8. Do you sit down with random people in a coffee house and start telling them your thoughts on the transgender culture wars and then expect them to just nod their heads in agreement and not say anything to disagree?

9.  I would characterize what I am doing here as pushing my thoughts and opinions. 

10. If you think pushing things on kids is wrong... then you agree then, we should all oppose pushing children into "gender affirming" care?

 







 

1. I don't think I talked about the motives of others, except maybe politicians.
2. That's how I respond.
3. Ok
4. I would have to look back to see what specifically you are talking about.  I'm not talking about the motives of people who respond to me here.  I see this issue as a culture war, for the most part.  That doesn't preclude people with real concerns from providing valid opinions and proceeding with respect.
5. I'm not fighting you.  We've barely talked about it.  I would rather we settle on terms of discussion before we start, though.  
6. Ok, well you don't respect my opinions but maybe/maybenot you respect me.  In any case, the conversation isn't going to go anywhere if you don't want to be open to changing your mind.  Do you ?
7. Of course we disagree.  You are completely alien to the idea of dispassionate discussion, I feel.
8. Maybe ?  I certainly have had discussions with strangers on controversial topics and said, at the end, we agree to disagree.
9. Well maybe it's ok then.
10. Absolutely we should not PUSH kids to do something they don't want.  But sometimes, they do want it.  I'm pretty sure of that.

Sorry I can't really reply to everything you wrote, please accept my replies to what I saw as your most salient points.

Thanks,
 

[User]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think I talked about the motives of others, except maybe politicians.

Well, you did and only now are you saying politicians, but even then my point still stands. It is an attack on the motives rather than engaging with the merits of the arguments. Also, seemingly very one sided. 

Is it a culture war gimmick when folks on the left are pushing this stuff onto society or only when it is opposed?

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. That's how I respond.

Doesn't change the results. 

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I would have to look back to see what specifically you are talking about.  I'm not talking about the motives of people who respond to me here.  I see this issue as a culture war, for the most part.  That doesn't preclude people with real concerns from providing valid opinions and proceeding with respect.

This is the problem when you make generic comments attacking motives. 

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. I'm not fighting you.  We've barely talked about it.  I would rather we settle on terms of discussion before we start, though.  

Its an analogy, the point is that you are here disagreeing with me and making a point to disagree in general on this subject matter. 

What terms do you need to settle on? You certainly did not need to do that before you started posting here to begin with. 

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Ok, well you don't respect my opinions but maybe/maybenot you respect me.  In any case, the conversation isn't going to go anywhere if you don't want to be open to changing your mind.  Do you ?

I am always open to having my mind changed based on the facts, logic, and reason. 

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. Of course we disagree.  You are completely alien to the idea of dispassionate discussion, I feel.

Where am I not being logical or rational? If you focus on what is said, instead of making these vague comments about me...

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

8. Maybe ?  I certainly have had discussions with strangers on controversial topics and said, at the end, we agree to disagree.

To agree to disagree means someone did in fact disagree. To the point, this is a forum, not a coffee shop, if you are going to give your opinions, expect to hear disagreement. 

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

10. Absolutely we should not PUSH kids to do something they don't want.  But sometimes, they do want it.  I'm pretty sure of that.

You just moved the goal posts. Now you added in "they don't want" 

So, when a boy wants to be a girl and then wants to compete with girls, but the girls don't want that, where does that fit in to what you are saying here with it being something we should not push?

 

 

[impartialobserver]

All i will say on this topic is that it really gets folks worked up. Very passionate and emotional. Hard to have dispassionate discussion when folks are so one or both sides gets so emotional. 

[herbie]

All I will say is WHO the f*ck do you think you are that you can tell a trans person what they can and can't do?
Why do you even give a shit?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

All I will say is WHO the f*ck do you think you are that you can tell a trans person what they can and can't do?
Why do you even give a shit?

And all the people that elected trump can say is who the f do you think you are that you can tell me what I can and can't do?

Ask your question, the answer would be American lawmakers and the public that voted them in. That's what you get when you start a culture war instead of working with people. Now you're not legally allowed to show your penis to young women in public places and your big hurt about it   

[User]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

All i will say on this topic is that it really gets folks worked up. Very passionate and emotional. Hard to have dispassionate discussion when folks are so one or both sides gets so emotional. 

You must be speaking from your own experience. 

That doesn't mean you get to project that onto everyone else. 

 

[User]

57 minutes ago, herbie said:

All I will say is WHO the f*ck do you think you are that you can tell a trans person what they can and can't do?
Why do you even give a shit?

When trans people and folks like you demand we pretend they are something they are not... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let men pretending to be women into their private spaces.... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let men pretending to be women beat up women in physical sports competitions and steal their medals... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let them lie to and push this madness onto children in schools, wanting to hide it from their parents... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you want to butcher and mutilate children, drug them up, so they can appear to be something they are not... we can say no and give a shit. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

When trans people and folks like you demand we pretend they are something they are not... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let men pretending to be women into their private spaces.... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let men pretending to be women beat up women in physical sports competitions and steal their medals... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you demand we let them lie to and push this madness onto children in schools, wanting to hide it from their parents... we can say no and give a shit. 

When trans people and folks like you want to butcher and mutilate children, drug them up, so they can appear to be something they are not... we can say no and give a shit. 

 

For the win. 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, User said:

When trans people and folks like you demand we pretend they are something they are not... we can say no and give a shit. 

When folks like you demand we pretend the Gulf of Mexico isn't we just laugh our asses off.

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, User said:

1. Well, you did and only now are you saying politicians, but even then my point still stands. It is an attack on the motives rather than engaging with the merits of the arguments. Also, seemingly very one sided. 

2. Is it a culture war gimmick when folks on the left are pushing this stuff onto society or only when it is opposed?

3. What terms do you need to settle on? You certainly did not need to do that before you started posting here to begin with. 

4. I am always open to having my mind changed based on the facts, logic, and reason. 

5. Where am I not being logical or rational? If you focus on what is said, instead of making these vague comments about me...

6. You just moved the goal posts. Now you added in "they don't want" 

7. So, when a boy wants to be a girl and then wants to compete with girls, but the girls don't want that, where does that fit in to what you are saying here with it being something we should not push?

 

 

1. Maybe you are on to something.  What if we say 'tactics' instead of 'motives' ?  The motive for any politician is to win an election, am i right ?

2. No, both.  The Left - or Democrats - play politics and the culture war also.

3. We need to agree on terms like 'pushing', ie. what that means.

4. That's good to hear.  Has it happened on this forum yet ?  It has with me.

5. You seem to think you are above being swayed by emotional response.  You try to argue that loaded phrases like "pushing things onto children" are objective, but that my description of the bible as an ancient holy book is subjective.  Do you agree ?

6. I am trying to drill down on what 'pushes" means.  What does "pushes" versus "talks about" mean ?  I think "pushes" means you are "selling" a concept to someone, and tacitly in this case means trying to convince a kid that THEY are trans when they are not.  That's the implicit message that we hear, and I think that it skews the discussion.

7. I'm not going into that until we agree on how to talk about it.  I could just frame it as "bigots are trying to persecute children and push Jesus on them" also.  I could find anecdotal evidence, one-off cases, and project that as the situation in general.  But you would push back, of course because it's skewed.  And then we would get nowhere, and it would be even less interesting than the meta-discussion we are having.

----

Maybe we can advance this by you explaining what you mean by "pushing" a concept on children.

Do you believe that there are people who don't feel comfortable in their gender and have felt that way since a young age ?  From what I have read, I think that it's real.

[User]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

When folks like you demand we pretend the Gulf of Mexico isn't we just laugh our asses off.

OK, don't care. This is a dumb comparison anyhow because it is still a gulf either way... it is just the name that changed, so it is not the same thing here at all. You probably thought you were really clever here too. How sad for you. LOL

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Maybe you are on to something.  What if we say 'tactics' instead of 'motives' ?  The motive for any politician is to win an election, am i right ?

Um... you just said you wanted to use tactics instead of motives, but then continue to use the term motive. I am also not in agreement on the change of terms because it is me who is pointing out what you are doing here in questioning motives. Now, if you want to change your argument to focus on tactics instead of motives, go for it. I also do not accept the question. No, not everything a politician does it based on the motive of winning an election, if you have something more specific here that relates to this topic, I am all ears. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. No, both.  The Left - or Democrats - play politics and the culture war also.

Now we are getting somewhere, or at least this is getting closer to the consistency I was hoping to see. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. We need to agree on terms like 'pushing', ie. what that means.

I already told you how I was using the term. In that you are giving your opinion here, but in regards to what is going on with kids and this issue, I have also outlined this as well:

-Politicians working to normalize kids being trans
-Putting trans books in schools, the curriculum, policies to "affirm" children being trans in schools, even worse policies to hide this from parents, laws enacting these things
-Putting trans kids into girls sports, telling girls they have to compete against boys
-Putting trans kids into traditional girl spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc... 
-Putting these messages into DEI training that is mandated into all government agencies
-Changing policies in the military to openly accept trans AND then also cover for their surgeries and other "affirming" care
-Putting trans prisoners into prisons with women where they are sexually assaulted and forcing tax payers to pay for their "affirming" care
-Forcing public officials to use any of the 1 million pronouns someone can choose for themselves, changing drivers licenses and other official documentation like birth certificates and passports to reflect a sex someone is not

All these things that if you go back 10 years ago were unheard of and not happening. All these things that are now the #1 priority of the left wing to defend and implement wherever they can. 

When I keep pointing out that we are merely fighting back, I mean just that. All those things above are being pushed into society. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. That's good to hear.  Has it happened on this forum yet ?  It has with me.

I can't think of an example here, I am still kind of new, but in my life I have changed my view on the death penalty and some drug use legalization. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. You seem to think you are above being swayed by emotional response.  You try to argue that loaded phrases like "pushing things onto children" are objective, but that my description of the bible as an ancient holy book is subjective.  Do you agree ?

No, not above it, but you were making the claim I might not be able to make dispassionate discussion. 

If you think I am using loaded phrases, then make that point when and where I do. I just explained my position on pushing above, nothing loaded about it. 

That is not what you said that I found subjective about the Bible. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. I am trying to drill down on what 'pushes" means.  What does "pushes" versus "talks about" mean ?  I think "pushes" means you are "selling" a concept to someone, and tacitly in this case means trying to convince a kid that THEY are trans when they are not.  That's the implicit message that we hear, and I think that it skews the discussion.

Answered above. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. I'm not going into that until we agree on how to talk about it.  I could just frame it as "bigots are trying to persecute children and push Jesus on them" also.  I could find anecdotal evidence, one-off cases, and project that as the situation in general.  But you would push back, of course because it's skewed.  And then we would get nowhere, and it would be even less interesting than the meta-discussion we are having.

We are already talking. If you have some kind of formality you wish to engage in here, then go ahead and explain what that is. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you believe that there are people who don't feel comfortable in their gender and have felt that way since a young age ?  From what I have read, I think that it's real.

Yes/No, and that has traditionally been dealth with for what it is, a mental issue to be treated as such, as opposed to the "gender affirming" stuff being pushed now that if a kid feels uncomfortable, then they must actually be trans and affirmed!

Even though it is a very common occurrence that kids going through puberty and other changes with their bodies and going to school with public pressures on appearance would feel uncomfortable. 

Most grow out of that feeling. 

No, that a young child has no idea about these things and it is a crime that parents and others would be transing their young children even before adolescence.

Kids will play around thinking they are dogs, or other animals... or a unicorn. It doesn't mean we should immediately begin treating them like one. 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

This is a dumb comparison anyhow because it is still a gulf either way.

Yes just like a trans is still a human being.

[ironstone]

On 2/8/2025 at 11:25 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

One major question - when minors should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding gender-affirming care. It’s a tricky one. As with many other decisions, people are going to change their minds. 

Gender affirming care. It sounds so gentle and wonderful. 

But the reality is that it's about chopping off healthy body parts of children.

[User]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes just like a trans is still a human being.

The debate here is not about them being a human being or not... it is about a man claiming he is a woman and vice versa, when they are not. 

Keep trying though. It is fun watching you fall on your face over and over again. 

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, User said:

The debate here is not about them being a human being or not... it is about a man claiming he is a woman and vice versa, when they are not.

The discussion and question is about why that is such a serious political issue. It's because people like you make it one and refuse to be a more humane being about it.

[User]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The discussion and question is about why that is such a serious political issue. It's because people like you make it one and refuse to be a more humane being about it.

Nope, it is because people like you push this garbage. You made it an issue, people like me are responding to it. 

Has nothing to do with being more humane. 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The discussion and question is about why that is such a serious political issue. It's because people like you make it one and refuse to be a more humane being about it.

Dude that's a blatant lie. 

E the issue is forced front and center every single time by the left. The right doesn't even think about this, if someone wants to dress up as a girl and wander about and be called Jane instead of Jim no conservatives care.

But the left demands that it be a huge issue front and center. They demand the right to waive their private parts in front of children and to be allowed to participate in areas where only women have been allowed for a very good reason including where they live in prison, where they are allowed to go to the washroom and even participating in programs set aside specifically for women.

They even demand human rights laws that say others must call them by their chosen pronoun or face severe repercussions and even jail time.

It is the left that demands That this be a huge national issue that is discussed daily.

Now there is a backlash. And you have nobody but yourselves to thank for it